The Lounge is rated PG. If you're about to post something you wouldn't want your
kid sister to read then don't post it. No flame wars, no abusive conduct, no programming
questions and please don't post ads.

And so far, I am not impressed. It has been a long day of googling, and finding only examples of others' frustration and confusion, and I am still not able to set up a DSL (PPPoE) connection over my wlan. In Windows I created a new connection, enter username and password, and it works.

Nearly everything does just work. Except a PPPoE connection over wifi, which is one of the first things I wanted in Ubuntu. That's why I installed it; to discover how to set up that connection, so I can give my housemate definitive instructions to set up the same connection on his Ubuntu machine, without having to sit and dabble in confusion on his machine.

I found the network manager button in the top bar, give me credit that far at least. My issue is that network manager isn't working. I create the DSL connection while connected to my router via cable, and I can connect over it. As soon as I unplug the cable, the DSL connection vanishes, even if I'm connected to the router via wifi. It looks like running pppoeconf will recognise a 'PPPoE Access Concentrator' on the wlan though, so I'm going to try that next.

The difference between Linux and Windows system administrators is that Linux system administrators need to be system administrators.

Hey, I am not a Linux SysAdmin, but I have taught some Linux SysAdmins here at Ivy Tech a thing or two (or three or four or five or... well, you get the idea). I think it is kind of sad that I, as a lowly student, knows more about Linux than the paid Linux SysAdmins here.

I think computer viruses should count as life. I think it says something about human nature that the only form of life we have created so far is purely destructive. We've created life in our own image.
Stephen Hawking

I think its sad that in the 2010's Linux still requires this kind to tomfoolery to do basis sysadmin tasks.

Jimmy wrote earlier "On the plus side, when you have mastered the details you will really know how the system operates." I certainly don't see that as a plus for Linux - modern devices should hide the complexity from users most of the time. I really don't see it as an "advantage" that mastering a system still requires occasional forays into state-of-the-art-40-years-ago command-line processing.

I do not see it as "effective" to have a GUI for each bloody option available in the command line. Setting up a static address is simple, even for a non-admin like me, and the command line is the superior model here; quick no-nonsense interaction, just bash in some scripts.

Now, let me see you work through a thirty-something screenshots, trying to figure out where they moved that textbox to since the last version you saw it.

It will take less time going through those 30-something screenshots than it would going through those lists of 300+ Linux commands to figure out which to use, then exploring its 30-something man pages and its 50-something parameters to discover which ones will do what you want, plus all the googling and exploring all the forums posts of similar questions, the first 500 of which are unanswered or tell you to RTFM.

If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP.

Oh, I agree. I loved DOS, and just like Linux commands, they're a lot quicker than a GUI.

But the key phrase in your response is "a trained user." The OP is untrained in Linux, as am I, and while the concepts are similar to DOS, even an old DOS expert will be lost when moving to Linux. The learning curve is steep: apps and user data are stored in different places (even from app to app), the commands are cryptic and inconsistent.

If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP.

Yeah, Yeah, bla, bla, I'm a command line god. etc. etc. more bullsh*t... ad infinitum.
I write sophisticated performance critical code for highly parallel environments and I KNOW how the target system works. When I have a problem with my system I say "Hey, IT guy, fix this machine you lazy f***!" cos he thinks dicking around with this crap is a skill, so he deserves my contempt. An when he's done I don't thank him, I just say "Now f*** off back to your cave you f***ing troll". That's how you speak to cavemen (read sysadmins, particularly NIX types).
TLDR; I've got more important things to do than RTFM.

I have really liked Linux as I've used it and gotten to know it better. As a programmer, it feels like "my" operating system in a way that Windows doesn't. I look forward to learning more and getting better at it.

On the other hand, you're absolutely right about this being the reason that Linux doesn't have a larger foothold. As much as I like Linux, it often takes way too long to do things that take a few seconds or minutes to do on my Windows box. For my things that I need to "just work" and get done quickly, I still do them on my Windows OS. Don't get me wrong: Linux has made huge strides as far as usability goes, as evidenced by Ubuntu. However, there are still those things that would be really difficult for a consumer to do or figure out and I believe that is why Linux is still not as popular as the other OSs, even though it's "free as in beer."

This isn't necessarily a bad thing, though. Look what you get with consumerization: Gnome3, Unity and Metro. I'm super grateful, though, that Linux's modularity allows me to dump parts I don't like and swap in parts that I prefer. That, I think, is its biggest strength. Like I said, Linux has made some great strides where usability is concerned and I do see it one day gaining widespread popularity on the desktop among technologists and consumers alike.